household outdoor/wet location connections

[Don Y]

Hi,

I have CATV/phone/network connections in several places
on the outside of the house. Of course, these have to
be "weatherproof" (just for the sake of the connectors
themselves).

I initially had the connectors "exposed" under a hinged
cover (that was not intended to seal watertight. This
was kind to the cabling mated to the connectors. But,
left the connectors more vulnerable.

I replaced these (covers) with spring-loaded, "water
tight" covers which protect the connectors better
(when NOT in use). But, the spring-loaded doors put
lots of stress on the cables *mated* to the connectors.

So, I'm looking for yet another option. Perhaps something
*designed* for outdoor use (so far, the connectors I have
used have NOT been "special" in any way).

Ideally, connectors/covers that treat each connection
individually -- so exposing one connection doesn't
require exposing another UNUSED connection (e.g., think
in terms of duplex receptacles). Maybe even the REALLY
old fashioned "screw cover" plates?

Thx,
--don

[PeterD]

We always used a rubber compound to seal those connectors. Lot's of
sources, used on both communications and in automotive work (to seal
holes, and such, in vehicles. Never hardens, very sticky, usually black
(but you can get gray). You kneed it for a while to warm it up and
soften it, then work it around the connectors. Very water tight. Very
hard to get off the hands when done, but hey, that's life.



--
I'm never going to grow up.

[Rich Webb]

Look at Amphenol's RJF families. The RJF 544 types aren't *terribly*
pricey and they are rated IP67. They use standard "RJ-45" connectors
internally, so there are no special issues regarding maintaining the
twist or pair matching, etc.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

[Don Y]

Hi Peter,

On 1/27/2012 6:29 AM, PeterD wrote:
> On 1/27/2012 12:31 AM, Don Y wrote:

>> So, I'm looking for yet another option. Perhaps something
>> *designed* for outdoor use (so far, the connectors I have
>> used have NOT been "special" in any way).
>>
>> Ideally, connectors/covers that treat each connection
>> individually -- so exposing one connection doesn't
>> require exposing another UNUSED connection (e.g., think
>> in terms of duplex receptacles). Maybe even the REALLY
>> old fashioned "screw cover" plates?
>

> We always used a rubber compound to seal those connectors. Lot's of
> sources, used on both communications and in automotive work (to seal
> holes, and such, in vehicles. Never hardens, very sticky, usually black
> (but you can get gray). You kneed it for a while to warm it up and
> soften it, then work it around the connectors. Very water tight. Very
> hard to get off the hands when done, but hey, that's life.

That would be fine for sealing *inside* the connectors (wire-side).
But, using it on the mating face would imply you aren't going
to ever *separate* the connectors, right?

(Silicone caulk also works well. For buried connections -- like
landscape lighting -- I run the wires into an old "pill bottle"
and then pump it full of silicone caulk, wait for it to "cure",
then bury in soil.)

I.e., I want to be able to plug a phone, TV cable, computer, etc.
into one of these connectors WHEN I NEED TO and then *unplug* it,
later -- and have the connector that remains be protected thereafter
(i.e., by a watertight door, etc.)

[Don Y]

Hi Rich,

On 1/27/2012 6:40 AM, Rich Webb wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:31:57 -0700, Don Y<th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>> I have CATV/phone/network connections in several places
>> on the outside of the house. Of course, these have to
>> be "weatherproof" (just for the sake of the connectors
>> themselves).

>> So, I'm looking for yet another option. Perhaps something
>> *designed* for outdoor use (so far, the connectors I have
>> used have NOT been "special" in any way).
>>
>> Ideally, connectors/covers that treat each connection
>> individually -- so exposing one connection doesn't
>> require exposing another UNUSED connection (e.g., think
>> in terms of duplex receptacles). Maybe even the REALLY
>> old fashioned "screw cover" plates?
>
> Look at Amphenol's RJF families. The RJF 544 types aren't *terribly*
> pricey and they are rated IP67. They use standard "RJ-45" connectors
> internally, so there are no special issues regarding maintaining the
> twist or pair matching, etc.

It doesn't look like the jack is protected when *not* mated (?).
Though mated looks to be an ideal solution!

I will have to look at some dimensioned drawings to see if I
can hide it behind a conventional hinged cover or similar.

Anything *like* these for the phone and CATV?

[Rich Webb]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:51:31 -0700, Don Y <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:

>Hi Rich,
>
>On 1/27/2012 6:40 AM, Rich Webb wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:31:57 -0700, Don Y<th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have CATV/phone/network connections in several places
>>> on the outside of the house. Of course, these have to
>>> be "weatherproof" (just for the sake of the connectors
>>> themselves).
>
>>> So, I'm looking for yet another option. Perhaps something
>>> *designed* for outdoor use (so far, the connectors I have
>>> used have NOT been "special" in any way).
>>>
>>> Ideally, connectors/covers that treat each connection
>>> individually -- so exposing one connection doesn't
>>> require exposing another UNUSED connection (e.g., think
>>> in terms of duplex receptacles). Maybe even the REALLY
>>> old fashioned "screw cover" plates?
>>
>> Look at Amphenol's RJF families. The RJF 544 types aren't *terribly*
>> pricey and they are rated IP67. They use standard "RJ-45" connectors
>> internally, so there are no special issues regarding maintaining the
>> twist or pair matching, etc.
>
>It doesn't look like the jack is protected when *not* mated (?).
>Though mated looks to be an ideal solution!

They also have IP67 caps available, of course. The product's PDF flyer
has dimensioned drawings and it looks like they'd fit into a commercial
weather box.

>I will have to look at some dimensioned drawings to see if I
>can hide it behind a conventional hinged cover or similar.
>
>Anything *like* these for the phone and CATV?

Sure. Mil/aero/marine/industrial services use connectors designed for
harsh environments all the time. Amphenol RF is one place to start but
there are many others. Be warned that price goes up with ruggedness.

[Don Y]

Hi Rich,

On 1/27/2012 12:24 PM, Rich Webb wrote:

>>>> I have CATV/phone/network connections in several places
>>>> on the outside of the house. Of course, these have to
>>>> be "weatherproof" (just for the sake of the connectors
>>>> themselves).

>>>> Ideally, connectors/covers that treat each connection
>>>> individually -- so exposing one connection doesn't
>>>> require exposing another UNUSED connection (e.g., think
>>>> in terms of duplex receptacles). Maybe even the REALLY
>>>> old fashioned "screw cover" plates?
>>>
>>> Look at Amphenol's RJF families. The RJF 544 types aren't *terribly*
>>> pricey and they are rated IP67. They use standard "RJ-45" connectors
>>> internally, so there are no special issues regarding maintaining the
>>> twist or pair matching, etc.
>>
>> It doesn't look like the jack is protected when *not* mated (?).
>> Though mated looks to be an ideal solution!
>
> They also have IP67 caps available, of course. The product's PDF flyer
> has dimensioned drawings and it looks like they'd fit into a commercial
> weather box.

OK. Looks like they have covered the case of mated and *not* mated.
Interesting to see firewire, usb, etc. connectors offered as well.
Obviously, they are thinking in terms of equipment cases (not
"back porches"! :> )

I didn't see anything suitable for RF. E.g., F connectors.
Maybe I can find a similar bayonet connector and use that
(since the cable that mates to it will need the "weatherproof
hood", I can just as easily put a BNC connector on one end
and F on the other)

>> I will have to look at some dimensioned drawings to see if I
>> can hide it behind a conventional hinged cover or similar.
>>
>> Anything *like* these for the phone and CATV?
>
> Sure. Mil/aero/marine/industrial services use connectors designed for
> harsh environments all the time. Amphenol RF is one place to start but
> there are many others. Be warned that price goes up with ruggedness.

I'm looking at onesy-twosies so cost isn't a big deal.

Thanks!

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-02-09, Don Y <th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> On 1/27/2012 12:24 PM, Rich Webb wrote:
>

> I didn't see anything suitable for RF. E.g., F connectors.
> Maybe I can find a similar bayonet connector and use that
> (since the cable that mates to it will need the "weatherproof
> hood", I can just as easily put a BNC connector on one end
> and F on the other)

You won't find special weatherfproof F connectors,
because that's the only type there is.

just screw a terminator cap on it, that's what the cable guys
do on the unused ports of their splitters.

The one I found on the ground looked a bit like this,
http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/222154/ACX1473-ND/1989922

dunno if they make a version with an O-ring inside, but if you face the jack
upwards it's not going to leak much with the cap on.






--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Don Y]

Hi Jasen,

On 2/9/2012 4:04 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2012-02-09, Don Y<th...@isnotme.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't see anything suitable for RF. E.g., F connectors.
>> Maybe I can find a similar bayonet connector and use that
>> (since the cable that mates to it will need the "weatherproof
>> hood", I can just as easily put a BNC connector on one end
>> and F on the other)
>
> You won't find special weatherfproof F connectors,
> because that's the only type there is.

<frown> I've looked at connectors left "out in the elements"
that don't look too good. E.g., even connectors at the masthead
have rubber hoods, etc.

> just screw a terminator cap on it, that's what the cable guys
> do on the unused ports of their splitters.
>
> The one I found on the ground looked a bit like this,
> http://search.digikey.com/us/en/products/222154/ACX1473-ND/1989922
>
> dunno if they make a version with an O-ring inside, but if you face the jack
> upwards it's not going to leak much with the cap on.

I have similar terminators on my *indoor* connectors.

But dealing with the elements also involves the space *around* the
connector/bulkhead. E.g., you can put this behind a typical NEMA
"wet location" cover. But, then whatever is in the "other half"
(think: duplex receptacle) of the fixture has to be compatible with
that sort of cover. (consider the connectors Rich mentioned
previously -- I want RJ11, RJ45 and F connectors available in
each "location")

Ideally, I would like to find a "family" of connectors that
solves this same problem in similar ways -- so I can come up
with one packaging approach instead of "do this for this half
of the connection point, and THIS for the other half..."

Currently, I'm pursuing the ANCIENT "wet location" covers
(round screw on caps) so I can adopt an *indoor* connector
solution and just overlay the "wet location" caps on that.

[Thomas]

I used a standard *INDOOR* wall keystone-type plate, cut down to fit within the
inside width and height of a weatherproof-while-in-use receptacle cover. I left
just enough height on the wall plate to allow me to bolt the plate to the cover.

So far it has worked admirably for over ten months.

-- Thomas

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

On 2/9/2012 1:47 PM, Thomas wrote:

[elided]

>> But dealing with the elements also involves the space *around* the
>> connector/bulkhead. E.g., you can put this behind a typical NEMA
>> "wet location" cover. But, then whatever is in the "other half"
>> (think: duplex receptacle) of the fixture has to be compatible with
>> that sort of cover. (consider the connectors Rich mentioned
>> previously -- I want RJ11, RJ45 and F connectors available in
>> each "location")
>>
>> Ideally, I would like to find a "family" of connectors that
>> solves this same problem in similar ways -- so I can come up
>> with one packaging approach instead of "do this for this half
>> of the connection point, and THIS for the other half..."
>>
>> Currently, I'm pursuing the ANCIENT "wet location" covers
>> (round screw on caps) so I can adopt an *indoor* connector
>> solution and just overlay the "wet location" caps on that.
>
> I used a standard *INDOOR* wall keystone-type plate, cut down to fit
> within the inside width and height of a weatherproof-while-in-use
> receptacle cover. I left just enough height on the wall plate to allow
> me to bolt the plate to the cover.

OK. In my case, I'd have to use these "component" wallplates
(i.e., mix and match various different connectors and combinations).

But, the actual wall plate is pretty *thick* (front to back).
I suspect this is because the "front surface" effectively has
to support these "plug in, modular connectors".

> So far it has worked admirably for over ten months.

So, the "cap" that covers the connector is deep enough to
clear the extent that the connector protrudes beyond the
"front surface"?

Did you remove/disable the springs that would normally hold
the "cap" closed (protecting the connector)? (all of the
covers I've seen -- that *seal* -- are spring-loaded)

If so, how effective is the seal without the spring tension?

If *not*, how do you handle the stress that it puts on the
"back side" of the cable-to-connector joint of the *mating*
cable? That was the problem I experienced -- if I left a
cable plugged in for a prolonged time (much of the year is
temperate here so you can easily leave a phone, TV, etc.
out on the porch for months at a time), the cable became
flakey because of the constant pressure on that flex point.

I.e., if you unplugged the cable, it invariably looked like
an "L" -- with the wire being the upright portion of the L
and the connector the other! This isn't as bad for bulky
coax but was a killer for phone/network.

(I also wonder how much of this stress is transferred to
the stationary connector's contacts)

The connectors Rich pointed out were great because they
looked like they would be protected when NOT in use as well
as when *IN* use (though with that obvious "MIL feel").

[Thomas]

Don Y wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 2/9/2012 1:47 PM, Thomas wrote:
>

<snip>

>> I used a standard *INDOOR* wall keystone-type plate, cut down to fit
>> within the inside width and height of a weatherproof-while-in-use

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

|||||||||||||||||||||||||

>> receptacle cover. I left just enough height on the wall plate to allow
>> me to bolt the plate to the cover.

Note the *weatherproof-while-in-use* above. These covers are designed to have a
power cord plugged in and the cover closed *without* placing undue stress on the
cord-to-plug area. All the ones I've seen at the hardware stores and home
centers (Lowe's, Home Depot, etc.) are transparent or semi-transparent.

>
> OK. In my case, I'd have to use these "component" wallplates
> (i.e., mix and match various different connectors and combinations).
>
> But, the actual wall plate is pretty *thick* (front to back).
> I suspect this is because the "front surface" effectively has
> to support these "plug in, modular connectors".

The keystone plate I used (in fact all the plates I've used over the years) are
no thicker at the edges than a standard plastic indoor wall plate. The area of
the plates that the keystone-style jack (be it modular, RCA, F, etc.) is
box-shaped to accommodate the jack insert. This area extends into the box, so if
you go this route ensure the box you use is at least deep enough to account for
this as well as leaving enough room so as not to stress the connections *inside*
the box when the plate/cover assembly is screwed to the box.

>
>> So far it has worked admirably for over ten months.
>
> So, the "cap" that covers the connector is deep enough to
> clear the extent that the connector protrudes beyond the
> "front surface"?

Your thinking of the usual weatherproof cover, which is not allowed per the NEC
in the US except where shielded from direct exposure to rainfall, e.g
house-side wall of a porch (other countries have similar rule?).

Where exposed to direct rainfall, all receptacles must be fitted with with
*weatherproof-while-in-use* covers. (IIRC this was mandated in the NEC back in
2005).

>
> Did you remove/disable the springs that would normally hold
> the "cap" closed (protecting the connector)? (all of the
> covers I've seen -- that *seal* -- are spring-loaded)

With the spring-loaded typically gray duplex covers so abundant everywhere (and
a lot of them don't meet today's NEC in the US) I understand your thinking of
this type of cover here. I've yet to see a weatherproof-while-in-use cover
anywhere (aside from the ones I myself have installed)

>
> If so, how effective is the seal without the spring tension?
>
> If *not*, how do you handle the stress that it puts on the
> "back side" of the cable-to-connector joint of the *mating*
> cable? That was the problem I experienced -- if I left a
> cable plugged in for a prolonged time (much of the year is
> temperate here so you can easily leave a phone, TV, etc.
> out on the porch for months at a time), the cable became
> flakey because of the constant pressure on that flex point.
>
> I.e., if you unplugged the cable, it invariably looked like
> an "L" -- with the wire being the upright portion of the L
> and the connector the other! This isn't as bad for bulky
> coax but was a killer for phone/network.
>

This is why I used a weatherproof-while-in-use cover for my outside phone jack.
No stress on the cable-to-plug connection nor the plug-to-jack connection.

> (I also wonder how much of this stress is transferred to
> the stationary connector's contacts)
>
> The connectors Rich pointed out were great because they
> looked like they would be protected when NOT in use as well
> as when *IN* use (though with that obvious "MIL feel").

The cover I used wasn't exactly cheep: about 12USD for the one I purchased at
the hardware store. Well worth it, though.

God Bless.

--

Thomas

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

On 2/10/2012 4:39 PM, Thomas wrote:

>>> I used a standard *INDOOR* wall keystone-type plate, cut down to fit
>>> within the inside width and height of a weatherproof-while-in-use
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Ah, my bad.

>>> receptacle cover. I left just enough height on the wall plate to allow
>>> me to bolt the plate to the cover.
>
> Note the *weatherproof-while-in-use* above. These covers are designed to have a
> power cord plugged in and the cover closed *without* placing undue stress on the
> cord-to-plug area. All the ones I've seen at the hardware stores and home
> centers (Lowe's, Home Depot, etc.) are transparent or semi-transparent.

Understood. The ones I installed for the electric outlets are made by
"Red Dot". Cast out of <something> -- both the plate and *cover*.

They come in two different orientations -- horizontal (so the "outlets"
are located side by side) and vertical (outlets above each other).
This affects where teh hinge is located.

I opted for the horizontal orientation as power cords don't have to
lay on top of each other as they try to exit the cover.

The problem with these is that they aren't "sealed" when not in use.
E.g., I've encountered AC receptacles with *plugged* ground "holes".
It appears that certain insects find places like this to lay
eggs (?) which they then "seal" in place.

>> OK. In my case, I'd have to use these "component" wallplates
>> (i.e., mix and match various different connectors and combinations).
>>
>> But, the actual wall plate is pretty *thick* (front to back).
>> I suspect this is because the "front surface" effectively has
>> to support these "plug in, modular connectors".
>
> The keystone plate I used (in fact all the plates I've used over the years) are
> no thicker at the edges than a standard plastic indoor wall plate. The area of

These actually have reinforced areas behind the "mounting holes"
because the face of the plate (which is what the mounting screw would
bottom *into*) is so far above the "seating plane" of the plate itself.
(I noticed this when purchasing them as the plates would have cracked
from mechanical stress when "tightened down", otherwise)

I.e., I may have to just find some other plates.

> the plates that the keystone-style jack (be it modular, RCA, F, etc.) is
> box-shaped to accommodate the jack insert. This area extends into the box, so if
> you go this route ensure the box you use is at least deep enough to account for
> this as well as leaving enough room so as not to stress the connections *inside*
> the box when the plate/cover assembly is screwed to the box.

Yes, I use what are called "deep" wet location boxes. A good three (?)
inches from front to back -- *plus* an additional ~3/4" "extension"
attached to the face. More space (volume) is always better than less!
Especially when you are trying to bend RG6Q *in* the box.

>>> So far it has worked admirably for over ten months.
>>
>> So, the "cap" that covers the connector is deep enough to
>> clear the extent that the connector protrudes beyond the
>> "front surface"?
>
> Your thinking of the usual weatherproof cover, which is not allowed per the NEC
> in the US except where shielded from direct exposure to rainfall, e.g
> house-side wall of a porch (other countries have similar rule?).
>
> Where exposed to direct rainfall, all receptacles must be fitted with with
> *weatherproof-while-in-use* covers. (IIRC this was mandated in the NEC back in
> 2005).

Understood.

>> Did you remove/disable the springs that would normally hold
>> the "cap" closed (protecting the connector)? (all of the
>> covers I've seen -- that *seal* -- are spring-loaded)
>
> With the spring-loaded typically gray duplex covers so abundant everywhere (and
> a lot of them don't meet today's NEC in the US) I understand your thinking of
> this type of cover here. I've yet to see a weatherproof-while-in-use cover
> anywhere (aside from the ones I myself have installed)

I see the "spring-loaded" covers sold everywhere. Even new designs
(e.g., for GFCI's). Though the "screw on caps" from ~50 years past
seem to be gone (maybe I'll try a surplus yard).

>> If so, how effective is the seal without the spring tension?
>>
>> If *not*, how do you handle the stress that it puts on the
>> "back side" of the cable-to-connector joint of the *mating*
>> cable? That was the problem I experienced -- if I left a
>> cable plugged in for a prolonged time (much of the year is
>> temperate here so you can easily leave a phone, TV, etc.
>> out on the porch for months at a time), the cable became
>> flakey because of the constant pressure on that flex point.
>>
>> I.e., if you unplugged the cable, it invariably looked like
>> an "L" -- with the wire being the upright portion of the L
>> and the connector the other! This isn't as bad for bulky
>> coax but was a killer for phone/network.
>
> This is why I used a weatherproof-while-in-use cover for my outside phone jack.
> No stress on the cable-to-plug connection nor the plug-to-jack connection.

Understood. But see above.

When I removed one of the trim boards that runs the length of the
house, it was *filled* with tightly rolled "leaf cuttings"! I
guess there is a bee/wasp that literally cuts the leaves off of
certain plants (i.e., chews across the leaf to cause part of it
to fall off) and uses it to protect its eggs?

Too many damn critters! I wonder what will happen when I move
the kiln out there?? :<

[Thomas]

Don Y wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 2/10/2012 4:39 PM, Thomas wrote:
>
>>>> I used a standard *INDOOR* wall keystone-type plate, cut down to fit
>>>> within the inside width and height of a weatherproof-while-in-use
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> |||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
> Ah, my bad.
>
>>>> receptacle cover. I left just enough height on the wall plate to allow
>>>> me to bolt the plate to the cover.

One detail I forgot to mention: the cover I used is the GFCI style, not the
standard duplex. By trimming the indoor keystone plate to fit the rectangular
hole in the cover and bolting the plate to the back of the cover I made a custom
weatherproof-while-in-use phone jack cover.

If I had a camera I would take a picture for you so you could see exactly what I
did (picture being a thousand words and all) but alas I'm not that fortunate...yet)

(I used an RJ-45 jack and plug; this permits not only the one voice and the DSL
lines, but allows two more voice lines in the future. I try to think ahead and
allow for future expansion/use whenever I do something like this. I felt
allowing for three voice lines was plenty. As it turned out, my wife would like
an office for her (very small at the moment) business; dedicated voice and fax
line for this can now be easily added because of my foresight.)

I Hope this helps.

God Bless.

--

Thomas

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

On 2/11/2012 9:41 AM, Thomas wrote:

>>>>> I used a standard *INDOOR* wall keystone-type plate, cut down to fit
>>>>> within the inside width and height of a weatherproof-while-in-use

>>>>> receptacle cover. I left just enough height on the wall plate to allow
>>>>> me to bolt the plate to the cover.
>
> One detail I forgot to mention: the cover I used is the GFCI style, not the
> standard duplex. By trimming the indoor keystone plate to fit the rectangular
> hole in the cover and bolting the plate to the back of the cover I made a custom
> weatherproof-while-in-use phone jack cover.

<frown> I can picture the cover and "fitting" the plate into it.
But, can't see how you'd fasten them together once that is done.
I.e., the difference between the traditional duplex "wet use cover"
and the GFCI variant is (besides the shape of the hole(s)) the
presence/absence of that "cross piece" between the two outlets
(which has a mounting hole in it).

Not to worry. I will look at one of them on my next visit to
Home Despot/Glowes/Space/etc. I vaguely recall the wet use cover
having LOTS of mounting options (to the wet use junction box);
no doubt to cover different configurations that might be
encountered. So, there is probably a set of suitable holes
that you availed yourself of that I can't envision...

> If I had a camera I would take a picture for you so you could see exactly what I
> did (picture being a thousand words and all) but alas I'm not that fortunate...yet)
>
> (I used an RJ-45 jack and plug; this permits not only the one voice and the DSL
> lines, but allows two more voice lines in the future. I try to think ahead and
> allow for future expansion/use whenever I do something like this. I felt

Understood. Inside the house, each wall plate has three connections:
phone, network and "antenna/cable". I opted to use a *red* RJ45
connector for the network connections (the wallplate itself is white;
as are the other "snap in connector modules"). I felt this would
help safeguard against "phones" being plugged into "network" outlets.
This also makes it easier to visually identify where you want to
plug in your laptop, etc.

(I have a box of ~500 such RJ45 "modules" in various colors. Red seemed
the most visually distinguishable. It *says*, "there is something
different about me; think twice before you use me!")

> allowing for three voice lines was plenty. As it turned out, my wife would like
> an office for her (very small at the moment) business; dedicated voice and fax
> line for this can now be easily added because of my foresight.)

Yup. Originally I had a 25 pair cable connecting the telephone network
interface to the distribution panel (punchdown blocks) in the house.
When I ran the (2!) RG6Q's for the CATV feed, I opted to replace it
since I wanted to save myself the hassle of drilling another hole
through the masonry to get the wires to the outside of the house.
(the existing hole wouldn't have been large enough for the two RG6Q's
*and* the 25 pair telco cable).

I could then have chosen to run some 12 pair to replace the 25 pair.
Or, the two CAT5's. Since all of the above were more than I'd
ever *need*, the CAT5's won the day! (again, with the realization
that I could eventually put a truly high speed interface on the
other end of the wire -- when/if the "utilities" decide to move into
the 21st century)

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:31:57 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:


> I have CATV/phone/network connections in several places
> on the outside of the house. Of course, these have to
> be "weatherproof"

There's two ways to weatherproof a splice; one is to seal it
with a wrap of fusion tape (a rubbery self-adhering tape,
available in rubber or silicone variants), another is 'liquid tape',
which is painted on.

Then, you put some enclosure around it (nowadays, often a
heavy heatshrink tube), and then you can bury it.

The other way, is to leave the splice unsealed, perhaps with
a dab of grease inside the connector to exclude water,
and (at most) a rain cover. This, though, cannot be
buried where ground water is possible, it has to be up
a few inches from the soil. You also must enter the rain cover
enclosure from BELOW, so raindrops don't cling to the cable and pour
in, but drip from the upward-headed cable at a low point (drip loop).

[Thomas]

Don Y wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 2/11/2012 9:41 AM, Thomas wrote:
>

<snip>

>>
>> One detail I forgot to mention: the cover I used is the GFCI style, not the
>> standard duplex. By trimming the indoor keystone plate to fit the rectangular
>> hole in the cover and bolting the plate to the back of the cover I made a custom
>> weatherproof-while-in-use phone jack cover.
>
> <frown> I can picture the cover and "fitting" the plate into it.
> But, can't see how you'd fasten them together once that is done.
> I.e., the difference between the traditional duplex "wet use cover"
> and the GFCI variant is (besides the shape of the hole(s)) the
> presence/absence of that "cross piece" between the two outlets
> (which has a mounting hole in it).

I drilled my own holes in the plate, then marked and drilled the holes in the
cover. You don't need very big bolts. I used #6 bolts (with washers on the cover
side) to fasten the two together. 3/4 inch long, IIRC.

>
> Not to worry. I will look at one of them on my next visit to
> Home Despot/Glowes/Space/etc. I vaguely recall the wet use cover
> having LOTS of mounting options (to the wet use junction box);
> no doubt to cover different configurations that might be
> encountered. So, there is probably a set of suitable holes
> that you availed yourself of that I can't envision...

Use the GFCI snap-in, then trim the wall plate to just fit the cover without
interference with the box when the cover is attached. Again, I trimmed the wall
plate just enough past the hole (towards the center of the plate) to allow me to
drill mounting holes in the plate *and* not interfere with the mounting post in
the box (if FS type (PVC) box), or the device mounting tab (or plate) in the
metal box (which I used). (I've seen metal boxes both ways: with tab/plate and
post style device mounting methods. I've only ever seen FS boxes with posts.)

>
>> If I had a camera I would take a picture for you so you could see exactly what I
>> did (picture being a thousand words and all) but alas I'm not that
>> fortunate...yet)
>>
>> (I used an RJ-45 jack and plug; this permits not only the one voice and the DSL
>> lines, but allows two more voice lines in the future. I try to think ahead and
>> allow for future expansion/use whenever I do something like this. I felt
>
> Understood. Inside the house, each wall plate has three connections:
> phone, network and "antenna/cable". I opted to use a *red* RJ45
> connector for the network connections (the wallplate itself is white;
> as are the other "snap in connector modules"). I felt this would
> help safeguard against "phones" being plugged into "network" outlets.
> This also makes it easier to visually identify where you want to
> plug in your laptop, etc.
>
> (I have a box of ~500 such RJ45 "modules" in various colors. Red seemed
> the most visually distinguishable. It *says*, "there is something
> different about me; think twice before you use me!")

I used blue, mainly because thats the only ones I could get at the time. (The
RJ-25s where almond/beige.) And they matched the cable I used (the jacket was
blue. ;) )

Just a note: my preference is gray-jacketed cable for voice, blue for data.
Color-coding saves a lot of confusion, yes?

>
>> allowing for three voice lines was plenty. As it turned out, my wife would like
>> an office for her (very small at the moment) business; dedicated voice and fax
>> line for this can now be easily added because of my foresight.)
>
> Yup. Originally I had a 25 pair cable connecting the telephone network
> interface to the distribution panel (punchdown blocks) in the house.
> When I ran the (2!) RG6Q's for the CATV feed, I opted to replace it
> since I wanted to save myself the hassle of drilling another hole
> through the masonry to get the wires to the outside of the house.
> (the existing hole wouldn't have been large enough for the two RG6Q's
> *and* the 25 pair telco cable).
>
> I could then have chosen to run some 12 pair to replace the 25 pair.
> Or, the two CAT5's. Since all of the above were more than I'd
> ever *need*, the CAT5's won the day! (again, with the realization
> that I could eventually put a truly high speed interface on the
> other end of the wire -- when/if the "utilities" decide to move into
> the 21st century)

The wife and I discussed at one point that if we ever built a house, we would
not run coax everywhere. Instead, we would set up a low-end-ish tower with four
video capture cards in it and enough hard drive capacity for about 200 hours of
recording, install openSUSE on it (the hardware requirements for openSUSE are
minimal), then set it up as as a video recorder. Attached to the capture cards
were to be standard, non-DVR satellite receivers (DirecTV or Dish, whichever was
to best value) set up so the PC could control them.

Since we would pretty much have a PC where we wanted to watch "TV", including
the living room, this would not be a problem. Since we also rip our CDs and DVDs
to my computer (it has the HDD capacity), setting up a media server made sense.
With the satellite receivers connected to the "video capture" tower, which would
have been set up to allow us to transfer those recordings we wanted to keep long
term to the media server, we effectively would have created our own four-channel
DVR. (If you have a satellite-provider provided DVR receiver and forget to pay
the bill you won't be able to watch any recorded material once your service is
cut off. The DVR functions are disabled along with the regular view-only
function. I suspect cable equipment works the same, yes?)

Just an idea.

And I agree with you on the utilities being stuck in the last century.

--

Thomas

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

>> <frown> I can picture the cover and "fitting" the plate into it.
>> But, can't see how you'd fasten them together once that is done.
>> I.e., the difference between the traditional duplex "wet use cover"
>> and the GFCI variant is (besides the shape of the hole(s)) the
>> presence/absence of that "cross piece" between the two outlets
>> (which has a mounting hole in it).
>
> I drilled my own holes in the plate, then marked and drilled the holes in the
> cover. You don't need very big bolts. I used #6 bolts (with washers on the cover
> side) to fasten the two together. 3/4 inch long, IIRC.

Ah, OK. You changed the rules ;-) I've been trying to recall what the
wet location covers, etc. that *I've* used looked like (without actually
removing one from its mounts) and how you made use of that. :-/

>> (I have a box of ~500 such RJ45 "modules" in various colors. Red seemed
>> the most visually distinguishable. It *says*, "there is something
>> different about me; think twice before you use me!")
>
> I used blue, mainly because thats the only ones I could get at the time. (The
> RJ-25s where almond/beige.) And they matched the cable I used (the jacket was
> blue. ;) )

My other half wanted white. Until I pointed out how hard it would
be to look at two similar looking connectors (RJ11&45) and get the
"right one", without careful examination and thought about the
connector IN YOUR HAND. (I've been cherry picking red "patch cords"
and putting them in the laptop cases to drive home this issue)

> Just a note: my preference is gray-jacketed cable for voice, blue for data.
> Color-coding saves a lot of confusion, yes?

I ran (white) CAT3 for phone and (blue or grey) CAT5 for the network
stuff (that's what I had on hand). Or course, the RG6Q is obviously
recognizable (black and *thick*!).

I had thought about running two CAT5's to each drop (instead of a
CAT5 and a CAT3) to be even *more* "future safe". But, seeing that
the CAT3's would be terminated in an entirely different place
than the CAT5's (i.e., not suitable for adding a network switch
near the punchdown panels at a later date), it seemed best to just
live with the three different cable types.

>>> allowing for three voice lines was plenty. As it turned out, my wife would like
>>> an office for her (very small at the moment) business; dedicated voice and fax
>>> line for this can now be easily added because of my foresight.)
>>
>> Yup. Originally I had a 25 pair cable connecting the telephone network
>> interface to the distribution panel (punchdown blocks) in the house.
>> When I ran the (2!) RG6Q's for the CATV feed, I opted to replace it
>> since I wanted to save myself the hassle of drilling another hole
>> through the masonry to get the wires to the outside of the house.
>> (the existing hole wouldn't have been large enough for the two RG6Q's
>> *and* the 25 pair telco cable).
>>
>> I could then have chosen to run some 12 pair to replace the 25 pair.
>> Or, the two CAT5's. Since all of the above were more than I'd
>> ever *need*, the CAT5's won the day! (again, with the realization
>> that I could eventually put a truly high speed interface on the
>> other end of the wire -- when/if the "utilities" decide to move into
>> the 21st century)
>
> The wife and I discussed at one point that if we ever built a house, we would
> not run coax everywhere.

Coax as in "CATV".

> Instead, we would set up a low-end-ish tower with four
> video capture cards in it and enough hard drive capacity for about 200 hours of
> recording, install openSUSE on it (the hardware requirements for openSUSE are
> minimal), then set it up as as a video recorder. Attached to the capture cards
> were to be standard, non-DVR satellite receivers (DirecTV or Dish, whichever was
> to best value) set up so the PC could control them.
>
> Since we would pretty much have a PC where we wanted to watch "TV", including
> the living room, this would not be a problem. Since we also rip our CDs and DVDs
> to my computer (it has the HDD capacity), setting up a media server made sense.
> With the satellite receivers connected to the "video capture" tower, which would
> have been set up to allow us to transfer those recordings we wanted to keep long
> term to the media server, we effectively would have created our own four-channel

This is exactly what I've been doing. Though extending it to encompas
audio and automation, as well.

I got tired of all the little piles of "consumer kit" cluttering up
the house. DVD player, "stereo" amplifier, CD player, TV tuner, TV,
speakers, etc. in each bedroom, family room, living room, etc. (Gee,
what if I want to sit outside and watch TV? Weather is always
"fine"...)

So, I ran CAT5 *everywhere* when we were remodeling (e.g., there are
four separate drops in the living room alone -- so the TV can sit in
any corner, etc.). But, I got nervous about NOT having phone and
CATV in those places: what happens when you sell the house and the
new owners aren't as "tech savvy"? ("Martha, where do we plug in the
PHONE?? And where is the cable TV connection???!").

"Wire is cheap" so I ran one of everything (if you don't need/use it,
replace the wall plate with "whatever" is appropriate and push the
wire back into the wall cavity). There are drops that feed speakers
mounted in the ceiling for background music, audio announcements
("Someone is at the front door"), etc.

I also ran CAT5 drops to the four corners of the house (think: PTZ IP
cameras), front porch (so you can see who is at the door!), etc.

And, additional specific drops for other "special needs" (e.g., to
the irrigation system controller, HVAC controller, etc.). There are
drops for bluetooth modules scattered around the house/property to
allow roaming devices to be "located" (I.e., I can wear a BT earpiece
or use a BT enabled PDA or cell phone to "talk" to the house as well
as having it figure out where I am: "Ah, he wants to watch _Buckaroo
Banzai_ in the *family* room..." -- location-aware computing)

Toys for retirement! :>

(actually, there are several different technologies involved that
I am exploring or developing for clients... being a guinea pig is
a great test platform!)

> DVR. (If you have a satellite-provider provided DVR receiver and forget to pay
> the bill you won't be able to watch any recorded material once your service is
> cut off. The DVR functions are disabled along with the regular view-only
> function. I suspect cable equipment works the same, yes?)

I think there are some older Tivo's that will work even after the
subscription has expired ("disabled"). I am thinking of one sitting
in a friend's shop... I will have to examine it and see, for sure.

But, MythTV or any of the commercial DVR software packages (usually
come with "camera cards") would also work (dubious quality). Content
providers don't want you having (legitimate!) copies of content.
They'd rather have you pay for *each* viewing of that content!

I've been accumulating (ahem) "broken" DTV STBs with an eye towards
a poor man's multichannel OTA DVR. The tuner is the tough part.
Once you've got the signal off the airwaves, the rest is just busy
work.

> Just an idea.

One that many folks share ;-)

> And I agree with you on the utilities being stuck in the last century.

<shrug> No pressure on them to change.

[Don Y]

On 2/11/2012 3:20 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:31:57 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:
>
>> I have CATV/phone/network connections in several places
>> on the outside of the house. Of course, these have to
>> be "weatherproof"
>
> There's two ways to weatherproof a splice; one is to seal it

Sorry, "splices" aren't the issue (perhaps I should have said
"connection points"? "outlets"? :-/ ). I.e., "I want to
plug in a phone/computer/TV on the back porch -- which is
sometimes subjected to the elements."

> with a wrap of fusion tape (a rubbery self-adhering tape,
> available in rubber or silicone variants), another is 'liquid tape',
> which is painted on.
>
> Then, you put some enclosure around it (nowadays, often a
> heavy heatshrink tube), and then you can bury it.

For direct burial, I put the "splice" in a "pill bottle" and then
squirt silicone "caulk" into the bottle until it is full/solid.
Then, throw the whole thing in the ground.

The bottle gives a form to the silicone (just trying to squirt
silicone on a splice is messy and doesn't guarantee the
silicon won't "ooze off" before it sets). And, it makes the
splice easy to handle as you are setting it in the ground
(no need to wait for the silicone to dry completely).

If the splice is far inside the bottle, the silicone seals
around the *edges* of the removed insulation, as well. This
keeps moisture from wicking up under the insulation and corroding
the wire(s). (I *think* you could probably set the splice in a
bucket of water without fear!)

And, above all, it's CHEAP! :>

[Thomas]

Don Y wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>>> <frown> I can picture the cover and "fitting" the plate into it.
>>> But, can't see how you'd fasten them together once that is done.
>>> I.e., the difference between the traditional duplex "wet use cover"
>>> and the GFCI variant is (besides the shape of the hole(s)) the
>>> presence/absence of that "cross piece" between the two outlets
>>> (which has a mounting hole in it).
>>
>> I drilled my own holes in the plate, then marked and drilled the holes in the
>> cover. You don't need very big bolts. I used #6 bolts (with washers on the cover
>> side) to fasten the two together. 3/4 inch long, IIRC.
>
> Ah, OK. You changed the rules ;-) I've been trying to recall what the
> wet location covers, etc. that *I've* used looked like (without actually
> removing one from its mounts) and how you made use of that. :-/
>

Sometimes you have to change the rules when there's no other option, as in this
case.

Why aren't weatherproof covers available for communications jacks (phone, data,
cable/sat, etc.)????? Surely there's a market for such.

God Bless

--

Thomas

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:26:54 -0500, Thomas <royalh...@embarqmailREMOVE.com>
wrote:

There are and there is. However, The market is obviously smaller than you
think it is (they cost more than a nickel).

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

On 2/12/2012 11:26 AM, Thomas wrote:

>>>> <frown> I can picture the cover and "fitting" the plate into it.
>>>> But, can't see how you'd fasten them together once that is done.
>>>> I.e., the difference between the traditional duplex "wet use cover"
>>>> and the GFCI variant is (besides the shape of the hole(s)) the
>>>> presence/absence of that "cross piece" between the two outlets
>>>> (which has a mounting hole in it).
>>>
>>> I drilled my own holes in the plate, then marked and drilled the holes in the
>>> cover. You don't need very big bolts. I used #6 bolts (with washers on the cover
>>> side) to fasten the two together. 3/4 inch long, IIRC.
>>
>> Ah, OK. You changed the rules ;-) I've been trying to recall what the
>> wet location covers, etc. that *I've* used looked like (without actually
>> removing one from its mounts) and how you made use of that. :-/
>
> Sometimes you have to change the rules when there's no other option, as in this
> case.

Yes, of course!

> Why aren't weatherproof covers available for communications jacks (phone, data,
> cable/sat, etc.)????? Surely there's a market for such.

Oh, I have some very *nice* weatherproof RJ11 connector plates!
But, they are for a single jack in a 1G jbox. When you start
wanting to mix-n-match assorted connectors, it gets a bit
harder to find things that were designed with this in mind.

For example, the "three module" wall plates that I use throughout
the house are a slightly different style than the wall plates that
I've used for the other normal outlets (and switches, for that
matter! Though switches tend to be located higher on the wall
than electric outlets and network/phone/TV connectors!). This
isn't a real problem because the plates are down low where you don't
tend to notice the little details of their styling (as long as
the color is correct and they are of roughly the same size -- note
that this is actually not standardized!).

And, they tend to not be located in close proximity to each other.
Electrical outlets are spaced at ~12 ft (or less) and you don't have
that many "communication outlets" in a given room (even with *my*
level of obsession!)

*But*, things are different when it comes to the kitchen! There,
switches *and* outlets tend to be "up where you can see them".
And, far more plentiful (every ~3 ft). So, "communication outlets"
are "up close and personal" and have a much greater chance of
being located close to an electrical outlet!

As such, slight differences in the styles of the wall plates
become obvious. (You also tend to notice the fact that the
individual "connector modules" are not seamlessly part of the
wall plate! Something that you can easily ignore when they
are lurking down by the floor! :-/ )

I have two such "triple" outlets (phone/TV/network) located in the
counter area -- another in an exposed "pantry" area (like a nook
in the wall... great place, IMO, for a little email station,
recipe display, telephone, etc. as it is NOT part of the normal
work surface). With outlets every ~3ft, its really hard not to
locate the communication outlets near a switch/electrical outlet.
In my case, it was less visually *assaulting* to space them a
few inches apart (can't put them in the same Jbox without a
barrier -- and, that would just complicate the whole wall plate
issue! "Hi, I want a wall plate that will support a duplex
receptacle, a single switch, an RJ45, an F connector and an
RJ11. What aisle are those located in?"

As to the general lack of selection regarding these sorts of
things, I suspect it is driven by the market. I don't know
*anyone* with CAT5 in their walls. Most folks go the wireless
route (no thank you!) due to the costs of having all that
wire strung -- even in "new construction" (I have advised
several friends building custom homes to do this. None seem
to have heeded my advice. Wireless *seems* so much more
flexible: "We don't have to decide WHERE we should put the
outlets...")

<shrug>

[Thomas]

Just a thought:

When the wife and I were discussing building a house someday, and we were were
looking at the communications area (voice and data), we decided that, since all
power wiring was to be in EMT conduit, all comms cable would be run in EMT
conduit as well. 3/4" EMT minimum for comms, which would easily permit two
RG-6/RG-59 coax and six CAT-5e cables to be pulled. More expensive, yes, be *we*
were to build the house, not contract it out.

(In the last 20 years I've worked as a carpenter, electrician, plumber,
sheetrock installer, painter, roofer, tile-setter, equipment operator, vinyl
siding installer, mason, and a few other trades.)

By running EMT between the server/comms room to each wall box (with no pull
boxes where possible), if necessary it would be a simple matter to pull another
cable to a given box for added functionality.

Since we had decided on drop ceilings throughout the house, running the EMT
overhead would permit easy access to those pull boxes that had to be installed.

God Bless.

--

Thomas

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

On 2/15/2012 9:10 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Just a thought:
>
> When the wife and I were discussing building a house someday, and we were were
> looking at the communications area (voice and data), we decided that, since all
> power wiring was to be in EMT conduit, all comms cable would be run in EMT

Not all localities require power to run in EMT. The few places that
I've lived that *did* were actually surprising (i.e., the requirement
had little rational basis).

> conduit as well. 3/4" EMT minimum for comms, which would easily permit two
> RG-6/RG-59 coax and six CAT-5e cables to be pulled. More expensive, yes, be *we*
> were to build the house, not contract it out.
>
> (In the last 20 years I've worked as a carpenter, electrician, plumber,
> sheetrock installer, painter, roofer, tile-setter, equipment operator, vinyl
> siding installer, mason, and a few other trades.)
>
> By running EMT between the server/comms room to each wall box (with no pull
> boxes where possible), if necessary it would be a simple matter to pull another
> cable to a given box for added functionality.

It's not always easy to do that. Nor to guarantee that you'll be
able to make that pull at a later date (in the presence of existing
cables). If you want to eliminate pull boxes *and* allow the EMT
to be "hidden" (behind finished walls/ceilings), the route you
can take is severely constrained. No tight bends, reduce the total
number of bends, etc.

E.g., running a new, below grade electrical service is a great example
of this. Since the cable (at LEAST #6SE-3 or better) has to be pulled
through an oversized conduit to get to the riser, there are rules
regarding minimum turn radius, total angular displacement, etc.
And that's with a conduit *significantly* larger than the cable
diameter!

You could find yourself, after the fact, with lots of pretty conduit
that doesn't give you the flexibility you *thought* it would.

> Since we had decided on drop ceilings throughout the house, running the EMT
> overhead would permit easy access to those pull boxes that had to be installed.

This can help, some -- as can an attic or basement. But note that fire
code will usually require firestops that effectively interrupt that
open space. You'll be able to do more "point to point" runs than you
would, otherwise. But still have to deal with getting into and out
of that space (i.e., two 90's at a minimum).

You might find it better (at least for comms wiring, etc.) to spend the
money you would have spent on the EMT for extra cable, instead. And,
just run blind drops inside walls wherever you might *conceivably*
want them. Then (!!!!) keep good records of where those drops actually
are in the walls (along with the relative positions of adjacent
studs) so you can open any wall cavity *knowing* you'll find the drop
within inches of the opening you cut!

This would especially be helpful for connections "mounted high" where
you don't want to commit to a "visible indication" of their presence
(at the time of construction). E.g., I have three modest sized
(12 to 19" dia) touch panels mounted on walls throughout the connections
for which will require a fair bit of work to *hide* if they are
ever removed/taken out of service.

(At least that's how *I* would tackle it for new construction)

[Thomas]

Don Y wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 2/15/2012 9:10 AM, Thomas wrote:
>> Just a thought:
>>
>> When the wife and I were discussing building a house someday, and we were were
>> looking at the communications area (voice and data), we decided that, since all
>> power wiring was to be in EMT conduit, all comms cable would be run in EMT
>
> Not all localities require power to run in EMT. The few places that
> I've lived that *did* were actually surprising (i.e., the requirement
> had little rational basis).

No, not all localities do. Mine doesn't. This doesn't prevent me from going
above and beyond code, however.

BTW, I do own copies of both the IRC and NEC (the NEC because the IRC changes
the all the chapter and section numbers and I am more familiar with the NEC than
the IRC).

>
>> conduit as well. 3/4" EMT minimum for comms, which would easily permit two
>> RG-6/RG-59 coax and six CAT-5e cables to be pulled. More expensive, yes, be *we*
>> were to build the house, not contract it out.
>>
>> (In the last 20 years I've worked as a carpenter, electrician, plumber,
>> sheetrock installer, painter, roofer, tile-setter, equipment operator, vinyl
>> siding installer, mason, and a few other trades.)
>>
>> By running EMT between the server/comms room to each wall box (with no pull
>> boxes where possible), if necessary it would be a simple matter to pull another
>> cable to a given box for added functionality.
>
> It's not always easy to do that. Nor to guarantee that you'll be
> able to make that pull at a later date (in the presence of existing
> cables). If you want to eliminate pull boxes *and* allow the EMT
> to be "hidden" (behind finished walls/ceilings), the route you
> can take is severely constrained. No tight bends, reduce the total
> number of bends, etc.

No, it isn't. Where the need was indicated, 1" or larger EMT would have been
run. All necessary pull boxes would be documented as to size and location on the
comms plan, which would be on display in the server/comms room.

My idea was to document everything on the plans, electrical, comms, plumbing,
HVAC, etc., not just for whomever had the house after use, but for myself.
(Things have a habit of moving by themselves over the years...at least thats
what my memory tells me.)

>
> E.g., running a new, below grade electrical service is a great example
> of this. Since the cable (at LEAST #6SE-3 or better) has to be pulled
> through an oversized conduit to get to the riser, there are rules
> regarding minimum turn radius, total angular displacement, etc.
> And that's with a conduit *significantly* larger than the cable
> diameter!
>

Conduit is inexpensive compared to the cost of time, equipment, labor, etc.,
required to do the the first time. By considering not only the present
requirements but possible future requirements (as I did for this house), and
making allowances for those possible future requirements, the size of conduit
can be increased if necessary to allow for future expansion.

And, no offense, but I am well aware of the bending requirements for conduits
and the maximum conduit fill. Also, I am aware of the (typically) 25-pound pull
force limit for CAT-5e.

Pulling lubricant is a wire/cable pullers friend.

> You could find yourself, after the fact, with lots of pretty conduit
> that doesn't give you the flexibility you *thought* it would.
>

Taking the time to carefully consider current needs as well as future needs
helps to mitigate this. ALL future needs cannot be practically allowed for, of
course.

FMC (flexible metal conduit) can be fish through walls about as easily as
fishing a cable. Actually, I've found in many cases fishing FMC to be easier to
fish down a wall: it's stiffer and less likely to curl up *IN* the wall and not
drop down to the hole cut for the box.

>> Since we had decided on drop ceilings throughout the house, running the EMT
>> overhead would permit easy access to those pull boxes that had to be installed.
>
> This can help, some -- as can an attic or basement. But note that fire
> code will usually require firestops that effectively interrupt that
> open space. You'll be able to do more "point to point" runs than you
> would, otherwise. But still have to deal with getting into and out
> of that space (i.e., two 90's at a minimum).

This was taken into consideration as well. Again, careful planning is required here.

I have used a fire caulk (expands when heated to further seal the gap) on a job
before. This was one of the requirements I had added to our spec list.

>
> You might find it better (at least for comms wiring, etc.) to spend the
> money you would have spent on the EMT for extra cable, instead. And,
> just run blind drops inside walls wherever you might *conceivably*
> want them. Then (!!!!) keep good records of where those drops actually
> are in the walls (along with the relative positions of adjacent
> studs) so you can open any wall cavity *knowing* you'll find the drop
> within inches of the opening you cut!

Good point. However, after working in commercial wiring running conduit of many
types, I prefer having that point-to-point chase. Anyone who's crawled under a
house or in an attic with barely enough room to breath, let alone actually move
around, will (hopefully) understand my preference.

>
> This would especially be helpful for connections "mounted high" where
> you don't want to commit to a "visible indication" of their presence
> (at the time of construction). E.g., I have three modest sized
> (12 to 19" dia) touch panels mounted on walls throughout the connections
> for which will require a fair bit of work to *hide* if they are
> ever removed/taken out of service.

Yes, may be hard to hide.

We decided *NOT* to worry so much about later moving/removing connections point
(jacks, etc.) as patching drywall was not a problem (and I've patched *a lot* of
drywall in my years. Years ago I removed a window in a house, closed in the
hole, and patched the drywall and the vinyl siding. My wife was amazed that she
couldn't tell where the window had been on the inside, and could barely tell
where it had been on the outside.

>
> (At least that's how *I* would tackle it for new construction)

Everyone has their own ideas. It all depends on their needs, circumstances,
desires, and whatever limitations they have.

We chose to list our needs and desires, then shoot for the moon, see how far we
could get, then go from there. :)

God Bless.

--

Thomas

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

On 2/16/2012 10:36 AM, Thomas wrote:

>>> When the wife and I were discussing building a house someday, and we were were
>>> looking at the communications area (voice and data), we decided that, since all
>>> power wiring was to be in EMT conduit, all comms cable would be run in EMT
>>
>> Not all localities require power to run in EMT. The few places that
>> I've lived that *did* were actually surprising (i.e., the requirement
>> had little rational basis).
>
> No, not all localities do. Mine doesn't. This doesn't prevent me from going
> above and beyond code, however.
>
> BTW, I do own copies of both the IRC and NEC (the NEC because the IRC changes
> the all the chapter and section numbers and I am more familiar with the NEC than
> the IRC).

But, of course, what *really* matters is the local code. And *it*
consists largely of references to the IRC, etc. -- EXCEPT when there
is something that the yokels decided they were more "expert" about :-/

>>> By running EMT between the server/comms room to each wall box (with no pull
>>> boxes where possible), if necessary it would be a simple matter to pull another
>>> cable to a given box for added functionality.
>>
>> It's not always easy to do that. Nor to guarantee that you'll be
>> able to make that pull at a later date (in the presence of existing
>> cables). If you want to eliminate pull boxes *and* allow the EMT
>> to be "hidden" (behind finished walls/ceilings), the route you
>> can take is severely constrained. No tight bends, reduce the total
>> number of bends, etc.
>
> No, it isn't. Where the need was indicated, 1" or larger EMT would have been
> run. All necessary pull boxes would be documented as to size and location on the
> comms plan, which would be on display in the server/comms room.
>
> My idea was to document everything on the plans, electrical, comms, plumbing,
> HVAC, etc., not just for whomever had the house after use, but for myself.
> (Things have a habit of moving by themselves over the years...at least thats
> what my memory tells me.)

<grin> You'd be amazed at how easily building documents tend to "get
lost" over the life of a house. I went to the city to see what
information they had on *this* house. A few minutes later, they came
back with the file -- completely empty. "Your house wasn't in the city
limits when it was built" yadayadayada...

So, I drafted an approximate plan (a tape rule and AutoCAD) so that I
could do simple things:
- how many tiles will we need to purchase to tile the floor
- where are each of the outlets/switches located
- what are the branch circuits servicing each of the above,
etc.

Some time later, I encountered someone with a similar floor plan (minor
differences: he didn't have a sunken living room, no fireplace,
different elevation, etc.) who *had* a copy of his original drawing
set. This helped me figure out where the footings were located,
which walls were load bearing, etc.

>> E.g., running a new, below grade electrical service is a great example
>> of this. Since the cable (at LEAST #6SE-3 or better) has to be pulled
>> through an oversized conduit to get to the riser, there are rules
>> regarding minimum turn radius, total angular displacement, etc.
>> And that's with a conduit *significantly* larger than the cable
>> diameter!
>
> Conduit is inexpensive compared to the cost of time, equipment, labor, etc.,
> required to do the the first time. By considering not only the present
> requirements but possible future requirements (as I did for this house), and
> making allowances for those possible future requirements, the size of conduit
> can be increased if necessary to allow for future expansion.

Yes. It is just phenomenally hard to predict the future! :>

E.g., when I put in the front sidewalk, I ran three lengths of 4" dia
pipe under it (three different locations) -- "for future use". That
was almost 20 years ago and I *think* I will have *a* use for one of
those channels this summer (another irrigation line).

I'll do the same when I replace the (concrete) driveway but *never*
expect to need them (a case of doing something to *ensure* you won't
need it? Which of murphy's laws/corollaries is that?? :> )

> And, no offense, but I am well aware of the bending requirements for conduits
> and the maximum conduit fill. Also, I am aware of the (typically) 25-pound pull
> force limit for CAT-5e.
>
> Pulling lubricant is a wire/cable pullers friend.

I use "muletape" (TmReg) when I'm pulling through EMT -- which is
typically only for power cable (the stuff I have would probably be
overkill for comm cable). So far, it has worked admirably.

>> You could find yourself, after the fact, with lots of pretty conduit
>> that doesn't give you the flexibility you *thought* it would.
>
> Taking the time to carefully consider current needs as well as future needs
> helps to mitigate this. ALL future needs cannot be practically allowed for, of
> course.
>
> FMC (flexible metal conduit) can be fish through walls about as easily as
> fishing a cable. Actually, I've found in many cases fishing FMC to be easier to
> fish down a wall: it's stiffer and less likely to curl up *IN* the wall and not
> drop down to the hole cut for the box.

I've not had any problems with any of my blind drops getting hung up
in the wall (everything here has to be fed from above -- no basement).
But, then again, I would tape the CAT3, CAT5 and RG6Q together as I
fed them into the wall. The RG6 really tends to enforce its will
on the other two stragglers (who might otherwise be more inclined
to coil up)

>>> Since we had decided on drop ceilings throughout the house, running the EMT
>>> overhead would permit easy access to those pull boxes that had to be installed.
>>
>> This can help, some -- as can an attic or basement. But note that fire
>> code will usually require firestops that effectively interrupt that
>> open space. You'll be able to do more "point to point" runs than you
>> would, otherwise. But still have to deal with getting into and out
>> of that space (i.e., two 90's at a minimum).
>
> This was taken into consideration as well. Again, careful planning is required here.
>
> I have used a fire caulk (expands when heated to further seal the gap) on a job
> before. This was one of the requirements I had added to our spec list.

It isn't required in many localities. Nor, in all locations *within*
a building. OTOH, some parts of buildings (and some *types* of
buildings) have extra needs. E.g., 2 hour fire resistance of certain
walls, ceilings, etc.

Frankly, I don't see the issue of *not* using these things everywhere.
Yeah, it's an extra labor step. Yeah, the caulk is considerably
more expensive than "silicone caulk". But, in the grand scheme of
things, it's just a little blip.

>> You might find it better (at least for comms wiring, etc.) to spend the
>> money you would have spent on the EMT for extra cable, instead. And,
>> just run blind drops inside walls wherever you might *conceivably*
>> want them. Then (!!!!) keep good records of where those drops actually
>> are in the walls (along with the relative positions of adjacent
>> studs) so you can open any wall cavity *knowing* you'll find the drop
>> within inches of the opening you cut!
>
> Good point. However, after working in commercial wiring running conduit of many
> types, I prefer having that point-to-point chase. Anyone who's crawled under a
> house or in an attic with barely enough room to breath, let alone actually move
> around, will (hopefully) understand my preference.

Frankly, my "drool item" would be a basement + sub-basement. The former
so you can *work* without having to worry about appearances, cleaning up
"any time soon", etc. And the latter for long term storage.

But, I think the stairs would be annoying -- especially as I get older
:< So, add a freight elevator to the list (think about the sorts of
tools and equipment you would likely want "down there"!).

Basements are *so* much nicer than attics, IMO. Quiet, comfortable,
isolated, "secure", etc.

>> This would especially be helpful for connections "mounted high" where
>> you don't want to commit to a "visible indication" of their presence
>> (at the time of construction). E.g., I have three modest sized
>> (12 to 19" dia) touch panels mounted on walls throughout the connections
>> for which will require a fair bit of work to *hide* if they are
>> ever removed/taken out of service.
>
> Yes, may be hard to hide.
>
> We decided *NOT* to worry so much about later moving/removing connections point
> (jacks, etc.) as patching drywall was not a problem (and I've patched *a lot* of
> drywall in my years. Years ago I removed a window in a house, closed in the
> hole, and patched the drywall and the vinyl siding. My wife was amazed that she
> couldn't tell where the window had been on the inside, and could barely tell
> where it had been on the outside.

The style in this part of the country is for textured walls and
ceilings. *Lots* of texture. I suspect some of this is cultural
but even more of it is to lower the quality of workmanship
required (!). I've been (slowly) going through the house trying
to replace walls to remove all of the texture. A *lot* harder
as you have to be really good at taping and finish sanding, etc.

But, it just looks *so* much nicer than the knockdown textures!
Especially when you can see the reflection of a light source
*along* the wall -- without obvious signs of dips and bumps!

A friend on the east coast has a VERY aggressive texture on his
walls -- almost half an inch thick! I have no idea how he can:
- keep it clean (you could "store grapes" in the recesses in
the texture! imagine dust/dirt!!)
- cut into it (without *breaking* large pieces)
- repair those cuts, "seamlessly"

[Thomas]

Don Y wrote:
> Hi Thomas,

Hello. How are you doing?

>>
>> BTW, I do own copies of both the IRC and NEC (the NEC because the IRC changes
>> the all the chapter and section numbers and I am more familiar with the NEC than
>> the IRC).
>
> But, of course, what *really* matters is the local code. And *it*
> consists largely of references to the IRC, etc. -- EXCEPT when there
> is something that the yokels decided they were more "expert" about :-/
>

Of Course. Always, always, *ALWAYS* check with the local building department god
to find out *their* code requirements.

>>
>> My idea was to document everything on the plans, electrical, comms, plumbing,
>> HVAC, etc., not just for whomever had the house after use, but for myself.
>> (Things have a habit of moving by themselves over the years...at least thats
>> what my memory tells me.)
>
> <grin> You'd be amazed at how easily building documents tend to "get
> lost" over the life of a house. I went to the city to see what
> information they had on *this* house. A few minutes later, they came
> back with the file -- completely empty. "Your house wasn't in the city
> limits when it was built" yadayadayada...

Yes, they do get lost/never archived. I would provide them, in one location
(mounted to the wall in a manner they could be easily removed for use). If they
get lost after I'm gone then, sorry, I provided the documentation, best I could
do. If the docs get lost/damaged/destroyed/ no offense, but oh well.

The local BD would be offered a copy as well.

>
> So, I drafted an approximate plan (a tape rule and AutoCAD) so that I
> could do simple things:
> - how many tiles will we need to purchase to tile the floor
> - where are each of the outlets/switches located
> - what are the branch circuits servicing each of the above,
> etc.

I used QuickCAD (poor mans AutoCAD; it does what I need it to). And yes, I've
had to completely measure a house, inside and out, and draw up a plan.

>
> Some time later, I encountered someone with a similar floor plan (minor
> differences: he didn't have a sunken living room, no fireplace,
> different elevation, etc.) who *had* a copy of his original drawing
> set. This helped me figure out where the footings were located,
> which walls were load bearing, etc.

Load-bearing walls/supports should, IMHO, *always* be identified on final
as-built drawings.

>
>> And, no offense, but I am well aware of the bending requirements for conduits
>> and the maximum conduit fill. Also, I am aware of the (typically) 25-pound pull
>> force limit for CAT-5e.
>>
>> Pulling lubricant is a wire/cable pullers friend.
>
> I use "muletape" (TmReg) when I'm pulling through EMT -- which is
> typically only for power cable (the stuff I have would probably be
> overkill for comm cable). So far, it has worked admirably.
>

Pulling lubricant can make pulling wire/cable even easier then using a fish
tape/muletape alone. Except, of course, that time on the job we popped a 2000
Lb-test mule*ROPE* pulling a 200-pair phone cable through a 3-inch RNC. FOUR
TIMES. The last time the fellow on the pulling said the last time the mulerope
snapped just outside the conduit. It shot down into like a bullet.) We ended up
guesstimating where the cable was and dug up the conduit to re-attach the
mulerope. Seems the cable got hung on the end of the pipe that wasn't fully
seated in the bell end.

>>
>> I have used a fire caulk (expands when heated to further seal the gap) on a job
>> before. This was one of the requirements I had added to our spec list.
>
> It isn't required in many localities. Nor, in all locations *within*
> a building. OTOH, some parts of buildings (and some *types* of
> buildings) have extra needs. E.g., 2 hour fire resistance of certain
> walls, ceilings, etc.
>
> Frankly, I don't see the issue of *not* using these things everywhere.
> Yeah, it's an extra labor step. Yeah, the caulk is considerably
> more expensive than "silicone caulk". But, in the grand scheme of
> things, it's just a little blip.
>

Sadly, no, it isn't required in all localities. And I don't see the issue of
*not* using fire-stopping (of suitable kind) where warranted, considering the
cost of building the structure in the first place.

> Frankly, my "drool item" would be a basement + sub-basement. The former
> so you can *work* without having to worry about appearances, cleaning up
> "any time soon", etc. And the latter for long term storage.
>
> But, I think the stairs would be annoying -- especially as I get older
> :< So, add a freight elevator to the list (think about the sorts of
> tools and equipment you would likely want "down there"!).
>
> Basements are *so* much nicer than attics, IMO. Quiet, comfortable,
> isolated, "secure", etc.
>

Down here in The South, basements are not very common from what I
know/researched. I don't why, but yes, a basement is very useful.

And I researched the requirements on residential elevators, as the wife pointed
out the very good possibility of needing one, considering her bad hip would make
climbing up and down stairs everyday a chore.

If the car is no more than 15 sq. ft. in area (at least here in SC), a license
would not be required for a residential elevator. We chose Thyssen-Krupp as the
manufacturer as of all the elevators I've traveled in, T-Ks are the smoothest
and quietest operating. And I liked the simple engineering and design of the T-K
residential elevator systems. I even downloaded all the documentation for one of
T-Ks models, wiring diagrams and all.

However, I personally would prefer installing a commercial-style elevator, even
though it requires an operators license.

> The style in this part of the country is for textured walls and
> ceilings. *Lots* of texture. I suspect some of this is cultural
> but even more of it is to lower the quality of workmanship
> required (!). I've been (slowly) going through the house trying
> to replace walls to remove all of the texture. A *lot* harder
> as you have to be really good at taping and finish sanding, etc.

Once (if) you get the hang of mudding and taping (untextured) drywall, it is
fairly easy. I'm not an expert at it, but as much taping and mudding as I've
done I should be.

>
> But, it just looks *so* much nicer than the knockdown textures!
> Especially when you can see the reflection of a light source
> *along* the wall -- without obvious signs of dips and bumps!

It does look a lot nicer without all the texturing, a (properly done) sand
texture aside (haven't yet quite got the hang of sand texturing).

>
> A friend on the east coast has a VERY aggressive texture on his
> walls -- almost half an inch thick! I have no idea how he can:
> - keep it clean (you could "store grapes" in the recesses in
> the texture! imagine dust/dirt!!)
> - cut into it (without *breaking* large pieces)
> - repair those cuts, "seamlessly"

*HALF AN INCH?????* That's a typical layer of sheetrock!

Better him than me to clean it. Bet cats would love to climb his walls!

God Bless.

--

Thomas

[Don Y]

Hi Thomas,

>> So, I drafted an approximate plan (a tape rule and AutoCAD) so that I
>> could do simple things:
>> - how many tiles will we need to purchase to tile the floor
>> - where are each of the outlets/switches located
>> - what are the branch circuits servicing each of the above,
>> etc.
>
> I used QuickCAD (poor mans AutoCAD; it does what I need it to). And yes, I've
> had to completely measure a house, inside and out, and draw up a plan.

I did the interior and exterior of the house plus the plot itself.
Helpful for keeping track of where I buried all the irrigation lines
(no fun "hunting" for them at some later date!)

>>> I have used a fire caulk (expands when heated to further seal the gap) on a job
>>> before. This was one of the requirements I had added to our spec list.
>>
>> It isn't required in many localities. Nor, in all locations *within*
>> a building. OTOH, some parts of buildings (and some *types* of
>> buildings) have extra needs. E.g., 2 hour fire resistance of certain
>> walls, ceilings, etc.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't see the issue of *not* using these things everywhere.
>> Yeah, it's an extra labor step. Yeah, the caulk is considerably
>> more expensive than "silicone caulk". But, in the grand scheme of
>> things, it's just a little blip.
>
> Sadly, no, it isn't required in all localities. And I don't see the issue of
> *not* using fire-stopping (of suitable kind) where warranted, considering the
> cost of building the structure in the first place.

Simple: the folks doing the work are usually not the ones who will
be LIVING in the building! :<

>> Frankly, my "drool item" would be a basement + sub-basement. The former
>> so you can *work* without having to worry about appearances, cleaning up
>> "any time soon", etc. And the latter for long term storage.
>>
>> But, I think the stairs would be annoying -- especially as I get older
>> :< So, add a freight elevator to the list (think about the sorts of
>> tools and equipment you would likely want "down there"!).
>>
>> Basements are *so* much nicer than attics, IMO. Quiet, comfortable,
>> isolated, "secure", etc.
>
> Down here in The South, basements are not very common from what I
> know/researched. I don't why, but yes, a basement is very useful.

I think you might have problems with water table (depending on
where you actually are). Here I think they just don't see the
"need" and they represent a sizable construction expense.

> And I researched the requirements on residential elevators, as the wife pointed
> out the very good possibility of needing one, considering her bad hip would make
> climbing up and down stairs everyday a chore.

I think you can get "chair lifts" for that sort of thing. A friend
diagnosed with ALS is going through that process, now. :<

> If the car is no more than 15 sq. ft. in area (at least here in SC), a license
> would not be required for a residential elevator. We chose Thyssen-Krupp as the
> manufacturer as of all the elevators I've traveled in, T-Ks are the smoothest
> and quietest operating. And I liked the simple engineering and design of the T-K
> residential elevator systems. I even downloaded all the documentation for one of
> T-Ks models, wiring diagrams and all.
>
> However, I personally would prefer installing a commercial-style elevator, even
> though it requires an operators license.

There are some that are hydraulic driven -- entirely from below.
Regardless, a silly expense (in my case) as it is just as easy
to live in a single level floor plan.

We looked at a home with an outlying building intended for "overflow
automobile storage" (i.e., 4 more bays in addition to the 3 that
were the real "garage"). But, the property was just too big and
too much maintenance (pool, spa, etc.).

While I would have enjoyed commandeering that building for my shop,
I am tickled NOT to have had to deal with all the other headaches
that a property of that sort would have entailed!

(I am getting lazy in my old age. :> )

>> The style in this part of the country is for textured walls and
>> ceilings. *Lots* of texture. I suspect some of this is cultural
>> but even more of it is to lower the quality of workmanship
>> required (!). I've been (slowly) going through the house trying
>> to replace walls to remove all of the texture. A *lot* harder
>> as you have to be really good at taping and finish sanding, etc.
>
> Once (if) you get the hang of mudding and taping (untextured) drywall, it is
> fairly easy. I'm not an expert at it, but as much taping and mudding as I've
> done I should be.

Yes. Patience and a good eye are all you need. But, it is *terribly*
messy work!

>> But, it just looks *so* much nicer than the knockdown textures!
>> Especially when you can see the reflection of a light source
>> *along* the wall -- without obvious signs of dips and bumps!
>
> It does look a lot nicer without all the texturing, a (properly done) sand
> texture aside (haven't yet quite got the hang of sand texturing).
>
>> A friend on the east coast has a VERY aggressive texture on his
>> walls -- almost half an inch thick! I have no idea how he can:
>> - keep it clean (you could "store grapes" in the recesses in
>> the texture! imagine dust/dirt!!)
>> - cut into it (without *breaking* large pieces)
>> - repair those cuts, "seamlessly"
>
> *HALF AN INCH?????* That's a typical layer of sheetrock!

Yes! The texture was *so* aggressive that you could actually hurt
yourself if you brushed into it (you really *could* get a grape
to fit and *stay* in any of the little nooks in the texture). The
mud used was exceedingly hard to resist crumbling (because the
texture was so "exposed")

> Better him than me to clean it. Bet cats would love to climb his walls!

Ha! Never thought of that!

I suspect cleaning is impractical. I think you count on the dirt
not being recognizable as such as the recesses typically look to be
"in shadow". Shadow, dust... <shrug>

I prefer a nice smooth finish with a semi-gloss paint that presents
a wipe clean finish (No thank you to wallpaper!)